Wait Times for Diagnostic Colonoscopy among Outpatients with Colorectal Cancer: A Comparison with Canadian Association of Gastroenterology Targets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Timely access to colonoscopy is a nationally recognized issue in Canada, with previous studies documenting significant wait times for a variety of indications. However, specific wait times for colonoscopy among patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer remain unknown. METHODS: A review of all outpatient cases of colorectal cancer diagnosed at colonoscopy in London, Ontario, in 2010 was performed. Wait times from the date of referral to colonoscopy were reviewed and compared with maximal wait times established by the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG) stratified according to indication. Cancer stage at the time of diagnosis was compared with colonoscopy wait times. RESULTS: A total of 106 colorectal cancer patients meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria were included in the study. Forty-six per cent of patients waited longer than CAG targets, with a mean (± SD) wait time of 79 ± 101 days. Higher cancer stage was associated with shorter wait time, likely as a result of triaging. CONCLUSION: Long wait times for diagnostic colonoscopy among patients with colorectal cancer remain an issue, with a significant proportion of cases not meeting maximal CAG wait time targets.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".